It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Background
Consensus on priorities to optimize the sick leave and rehabilitation process (SRP) is lacking.
ObjectiveTo explore perspectives of stakeholders in the SRP on bridging the gap between desired process scope, and actual practice, from a multi-professional, multi-organizational, and interdisciplinary approach.
Design and settingFocus group interviews were conducted with various SRP frontline professionals in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, using purposive sampling to capture a range of experiences. Participants discussed their perceptions of critical changes and priorities needed to meet patients’ SRP needs in a primary care context. All interviews were analyzed using systematic text condensation, as described by Malterud.
SubjectsGeneral practitioners (n = 6), rehabilitation coordinators and licensed healthcare professionals from primary healthcare (n = 13), administrators from the Social Insurance Agency, the Employment Agency and Social Services (n = 12).
ResultsThrough data analysis, the following themes emerged: 1) The need for rules and regulations to enable coherent process governance 2) Challenges and opportunities in person-centered SRP: Professional collaboration, organizational priorities, and the need for enhanced leadership, and 3) Balancing resources and patient needs in the SRP: How to improve care quality and accessibility. In summary, participants mainly discussed how to improve process efficiency and quality of care while balancing available resources and a heavy workload. A main goal was to prevent negative spirals of suboptimal decision-making in individual cases, which could lead to increased work, unfortunate outcomes, and patient suffering.
ConclusionsThis qualitative study indicated that gaps between a desired process scope and actual practice might be bridged by enabling coherent cross-organizational process governance, prioritizing person-centered ways of working, and balancing available resources and workload. The above changes were believed to improve process quality and overall efficiency.
Trial registrationThe study project plan was pre-registered on September 21st, 2020, in the database FOU i VGR (researchweb.org), project number 274941.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details








1 General Practice / Family Medicine, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Region Västra Götaland, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Primary Health Care, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Center Södra Älvsborg, Sweden
2 General Practice / Family Medicine, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Social Work, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Rehabilitation Medicine, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden
3 Department of Technology Management and Economics, Centre of Healthcare Improvements, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
4 Region Västra Götaland, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Primary Health Care, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Center Södra Älvsborg, Sweden; Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Health and Rehabilitation, Unit of Physiotherapy, University of Gothenburg Sahlgrenska Akademin, Gothenburg, Sweden
5 General Practice / Family Medicine, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Region Västra Götaland, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Primary Health Care, Göteborg, Sweden
6 General Practice / Family Medicine, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Region Västra Götaland, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Primary Health Care, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Center Fyrbodal, Sweden
7 General Practice / Family Medicine, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Region Västra Götaland, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Primary Health Care, Göteborg, Sweden; Region Västra Götaland, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Primary Health Care, Research, Education, Development & Innovation Center Skaraborg, Sweden